Your straw man was saying that it was "IE or Mozilla" like they were the only choices, and again you try to make an "US VS Them" argument which again holds ZERO water.

Don't like Chrome? Great, you have MANY choices that also have low rights mode and don't call home. I personally use Comodo Dragon, it gives the user Privdog right off the bat (but can be disabled if you don't want it) and the only "phone home" it has is an update checker. You can choose to use their free DNS service which is great at blocking phishing sites but unlike Chrome its a checkbox at install or a simple checkbox in options so you can flip it on and off whenever you like. Don't like dragon either? SWIron, Chromium, heck even QTWeb supports low rights mode IIRC and its not only FOSS its cross platform as well.

At the end of the day all you are doing is making excuses and everybody knows that excuses are just like a certain orifice in that everybody has one and they all stink. Good security practices are good, bad security practices are bad, and for whatever reason Moz has decided to stick with the latter. If that serious risk is something you are willing to put up with? Fine that is your choice, just as its mine to warn people they are taking risks with their systems that they don't have to.

Your straw man was saying that it was "IE or Mozilla" like they were the only choices, and again you try to make an "US VS Them" argument which again holds ZERO water.

You strawman me by changing my argument until it sounds ridiculous. I didn't know Chrome had that feature which is why I stated it as a question. So 2 browsers that support it on windows. The many skins of chrome like Comodo, Opera etc. count as one just as the many skins of IE count as one.

At the end of the day all you are doing is making excuses and everybody knows that excuses are just like a certain orifice in that everybody has one and they all stink. Good security practices are good, bad security practices are bad, and for whatever reason Moz has decided to stick with the latter. If that serious risk is something you are willing to put up with? Fine that is your choice, just as its mine to warn people they are taking risks with their systems that they don't have to.

I have asked questions and instead of answering you wave them away as if smart people should just now that you are right. You did not address a single argument I made.

A lot of statements and no arguments or anything that could convince someone like me.

What questions? You made an "us versus them" strawman, and i pointed out a half a dozen choices, NONE of them running the IE trident engine (if I would have included those that use trident i could have upped the list to a dozen) and the only "question" you supposedly asked was, and I quote "So this feature only works on vista/win7/win8 with IE?"

So if you want your one highly rigged "question" answered i have already answered it, NO it doesn't only work in IE, pretty much any chromium or webkit based also supports this feature and NO it doesn't work only in windows, it would be trivial to add support in AppArmor or SELinux.

The default Linux security model of a simplistic (designed in the early 70s BTW, Linus got it from early Unix) model based on R/W/E is too primitive and coarse to be useful, but that is of course why AppArmor and SELinux were made, to give the MUCH better NTFS style ACLs (designed by Dave Cutler originally for VMS and he brought them to Windows when he designed NTFS) so that Linux could have fine grained security with permission levels.

So if you want to keep making straw men go right ahead but you can try to spin it all you want but in the end you can't change the facts, which are that good security practices are good, bad practices are bad, and that running the browser in the same permissions as the user is just dumb and that is EXACTLY what Firefox does and there is nothing you can say that will change that, nor will it change that there are browsers out there that don't make such a stupid mistake.